Thinking about a New Job for New Year?

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
An update for 2007/2008!

So, today, I added this following stuff in edit to Post #1
Added in edit (Dec 13, 2007):
It has been nearly a year since I started this thread. If you are reading it for the first time, trust me - none of it is "stale" information; it is all just as pertinent today as it was back in 2006 and most likely will be in 2008.

I have added some new information in post # 91 today. If it helps someone land a job even one day sooner than without, I'll be content. I'm not sure why you've chosen this thread -
  1. if it is for general info, to store away for future use, GOOD! We ALL need to prepare for change; change is inevitable.
  2. if it is because you are currently out of work and stressing, you have my sympathy, but even more, this is a roadmap to help you find your way and relieve SOME of the stress.
  3. if it is because you have a friend or relative currently out of work, regardless of the field of work, the information in this and the companion threads listed
    Resume and cover letter - How good are yours?
    The Job Hunt - Care and feeding of references
    Tips to get past the "gatekeeper" when job hunting
    will help them focus on the task at hand - getting a meaningful job on his or her own merit!
It's been a year since we started this thread, and, if anything, the job market is even scarier than it was back then. We've learned of Quality slippages with sometimes horrible consequences (pet food, human food, children's toys, toothpaste) not only in products that may harm us or kill us or our loved ones and pets, but those are usually only the recalls that get the wide press notoriety.

The question for the job hunter is "How can I use these examples to help show MY value to a prospective employer without scaring him into believing I am some sort of evil "whistleblower" out to destroy him and his organization?"

The entire job hunt campaign has to combine the virtues of tenacity and tact.

Throughout these discussions in the occupation Forums, I have consistently stressed that any prospective employer ALWAYS has the question in his mind when making ANY decision (hiring, firing, even where to eat lunch today):
"What's in it for me?"
I am not being cynical, I'm being practical and realistic - two traits the job hunter needs in abundance. As a candidate, every communication you have with a prospective employer must follow Deming's comment (aimed at the employer then and still valid when aimed at the candidate today):
"Remove fear!"

There are many fears haunting prospective employers today and regardless of any bluster to the contrary, they will ALL welcome anything or anyone who can remove that fear. Your task as a candidate includes researching to find the most obvious and pressing fears which YOU, as a prospective employee, may be able to relieve and, hopefully, eliminate.

So, today, let's pick up the thread by listing some of those possible fears and role-playing to see how we might "raise and dismiss" those fears to help the prospective employer see you, the candidate, as "the must have, go to guy" for his team.

One of the mildest fears facing an employer looking at a new candidate is
"What if this person doesn't fit in with me and the others in our organization? How will that reflect on MY decision making?"

Let's hear some ideas on how you might inoculate each prospective employer against letting that fear deter him from selecting YOU. Then we'll identify some more of those fears and work out more "immunizations" and even "cures" for those.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Re: An update for 2007/2008!

The question for the job hunter is "How can I use these examples to help show MY value to a prospective employer without scaring him into believing I am some sort of evil "whistleblower" out to destroy him and his organization?"
I'm not sure it's a good idea to instill fear (or accentuate existing fear) and then try to assuage it. Unless a candidate knows that a potential employer has been stung, or is in a position to be stung, it probably won't be helpful to bring it up.

One of the mildest fears facing an employer looking at a new candidate is
"What if this person doesn't fit in with me and the others in our organization? How will that reflect on MY decision making?"

Just about everyone who's done any interviewing and hiring has seen a candidate who looked great on paper and in interviews crash and burn once on the job. A big problem in many organizations is new employees who do crash and burn but are allowed to continue crashing and burning because some manager is loathe to admit that he made a mistake. Thus the advent of "gang" interviews where candidates are grilled by a roomful of people, which putatively increases the chances that a person's crash potential will be detected.

Let's hear some ideas on how you might inoculate each prospective employer against letting that fear deter him from selecting YOU. Then we'll identify some more of those fears and work out more "immunizations" and even "cures" for those.
In my opinion it's best to always accentuate the positive in interviews, and one good way to do it is to ask the interviewer what the specific problems he's facing are and not talk about hypotheticals or potential problems. Ask the interviewer something along the lines of "If you could push a button and make any single quality problem go away, what would it be?" and then give examples of how you've dealt with similar problems. This (A) gives insight into the current quality system, (B) alerts the interviewer to the fact that you're capable of providing solutions to problems that he needs help with, and (C) shows the interviewer how your skills and experience are directly relevant.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Re: An update for 2007/2008!

Just about everyone who's done any interviewing and hiring has seen a candidate who looked great on paper and in interviews crash and burn once on the job. A big problem in many organizations is new employees who do crash and burn but are allowed to continue crashing and burning because some manager is loathe to admit that he made a mistake. Thus the advent of "gang" interviews where candidates are grilled by a roomful of people, which putatively increases the chances that a person's crash potential will be detected.
[/color][/color]
The biggest reason for gang interviews at most organizations is not to detect "wrongness" in the candidate, but to spread blame when the stuff hits the fan. Ever stop to think the idea of "gang interviews" IS because of the fear of hiring the wrong guy? The smart candidate recognizes this and makes an effort to show himself as a person who can get along (and even excel) in ANY and EVERY situation, without being a toady or yes man.

A frequent question that arises in interviews lately is "Tell me [us] how you handled (or would handle) a tough customer screaming and shouting about a nonconformance." The idea here is not to show that you were a genius in solving the nonconformance, but that you were (to all intents and purposes) unflappable and managed to mollify the customer, in a polite and professional manner, while you led an efficient problem solving approach to resolving the customer's problem.
In my opinion it's best to always accentuate the positive in interviews, and one good way to do it is to ask the interviewer what the specific problems he's facing are and not talk about hypotheticals or potential problems. Ask the interviewer something along the lines of "If you could push a button and make any single quality problem go away, what would it be?" and then give examples of how you've dealt with similar problems. This (A) gives insight into the current quality system, (B) alerts the interviewer to the fact that you're capable of providing solutions to problems that he needs help with, and (C) shows the interviewer how your skills and experience are directly relevant.
Beginning a question with an "IF" certainly seem like a "hypothetical" to me!

Yeah. This is good advice when you have a calm, cool, collected interviewer who is extremely knowledgeable about the organization and is cognizant af all the problems and challenges it faces. The reality is most folks doing the interviews are ill-prepared and need to be "helped" to ask the right questions and even more often be "helped" to recognize the value of a candidate who makes the interview go smoothly instead of posing questions the interviewer is ill-prepared to answer. Asking a functionary from a human resources office a hypothetical is just wasting his time and yours - odds are he won't have sufficient overall information about the organization to identify such a problem and even less incentive to pass on to the real decision maker how brilliant the candidate was to ask such a question that made him look like an ignoramus.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Re: An update for 2007/2008!

The biggest reason for gang interviews at most organizations is not to detect "wrongness" in the candidate, but to spread blame when the stuff hits the fan. Ever stop to think the idea of "gang interviews" IS because of the fear of hiring the wrong guy? The smart candidate recognizes this and makes an effort to show himself as a person who can get along (and even excel) in ANY and EVERY situation, without being a toady or yes man.

Group interviews developed, as I said, as an enhanced method of detecting wrong candidates, and not because of any sort of CYA mentality (although it might be used that way in some circumstances). It's just a logical extension of the idea of cross-functionality and working in teams to gather information.

A frequent question that arises in interviews lately is "Tell me [us] how you handled (or would handle) a tough customer screaming and shouting about a nonconformance."
How do you know this? Could you share specific examples from your own experience as an interviewee? I've never heard the question personally. I imagine it might come up for customer service candidates, but I think most interviewers are aware that quality management people have shared experience in dealing with difficult customers. A more likely question along the same lines (and one I've both asked and answered) might be about how a candidate would deal with difficult people internally, as this is an area where quality managers (and others in quality) need to be able to demonstrate tact and diplomacy. The question is also a red flag of sorts because it indicates that "constancy of purpose" might be lacking in the company in question.

Beginning a question with an "IF" certainly seem like a "hypothetical" to me!
The hypothetical is the button, not the actual quality problem the interviewer would like to banish. You might have noted that I suggested asking for an actual, particularly troublesome issue, and not a hypothetical situation.

Yeah. This is good advice when you have a calm, cool, collected interviewer who is extremely knowledgeable about the organization and is cognizant af all the problems and challenges it faces. The reality is most folks doing the interviews are ill-prepared and need to be "helped" to ask the right questions and even more often be "helped" to recognize the value of a candidate who makes the interview go smoothly instead of posing questions the interviewer is ill-prepared to answer. Asking a functionary from a human resources office a hypothetical is just wasting his time and yours - odds are he won't have sufficient overall information about the organization to identify such a problem and even less incentive to pass on to the real decision maker how brilliant the candidate was to ask such a question that made him look like an ignoramus.

First, I was (obviously, I thought) referring to interviewers beyond the HR gatekeepers, where those exist. Interviews with HR people are going to be more general in nature, and we shouldn't assume any technical knowledge on the part of the interviewer. Are you saying that we should bring up notorious quality scandals with HR gatekeepers?
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Lest I be accused of not being knowledgeable when it comes to a business process like hiring and firing FROM THE EMPLOYER'S POINT OF VIEW, even though I spent so much time in that position (versus "wishing the way it was"), I took some time to consult with friends and colleagues who still sit in the C-level suite.

Some answers:

In the trade, bosses make a distinction between a "group interview" and a "panel interview." Group interviews are rarely deployed, but they involve both multiple candidates and multiple interviewers in the same room, like a "panel presentation" at a conference. Knowledgeable interviewers from various departments each make overview statements about the structure and operation of their departments to the assembled group of candidates (so each candidate gets identical presentation and information.) Candidates then ask general or clarifying questions of the assembled interviewers so all interviewers and fellow candidates hear and see same questions and answers. During this process, the interviewers (and various staffers) make mental and actual notes about the candidates and the depth and scope of their questions and demeanor in asking them.

Candidates may be vying for the same or different jobs. The entire purpose of this form of interview is efficiency in whittling down the pool of candidates while assuring against later fallout of some level of discrimination.

Candidates who survive this level of interview may then individually face a "panel interview" (one candidate, several organization interviewers.) The interviewers may represent either a cross-section of the departments the successful candidate will interact with on the job or the actual team the successful candidate will work with on a day-to-day basis.

The primary purpose of this level of interview is to see how the candidate would fit in, since his technical expertise is accepted if he reaches this level of interview. If a technical question is posed, the interview team will be concentrating on the style of the response, but, obviously, any candidate who flubs the answer from a technical stance will almost certainly be dismissed at that point, not to waste the time of the team with a technical incompetent.

I asked three different folks the same question today:

"Do you do this process as a primary aid to choosing the right candidate or avoiding choosing the wrong candidate?" Whichever answer I received, my followup question was to be, "Can you explain?"

One answer typified the others and was better phrased.
"We used to do "serial interviews" (one-on-one) stretched throughout a whole day. We found that we were tiring ourselves and we were definitely tiring the candidates so that the final interview really was testing a candidate's stamina and not necessarily his suitability for the job. We also found the candidates were "playing us" as they catered to whatever perceived likes and dislikes they discerned in each interviewer and we ended up getting conflicting opinions among the interviewers when they compared notes after the interviews.

"It took us a while to get used to the panel interview, but we discovered the interviewers made a point to be better prepared because they were being judged by their peers in addition to judging the candidates.

"The efficiency is terrific. If we had four candidates in one day with four interviewers, each interviewer used to spend more than an hour with each candidate and with "slippage," interviews used to continue into the night, plus several hours of comparing notes the following day. Now the panel of four interviews each candidate for one hour, then 15 minutes of comparing notes, then 15 minute break, then next candidate. Everything is done in one day: 2 candidates for 3 hours in the morning; 2 candidates for 3 hours in the afternoon. Everything is on schedule and no slippage!"

I want to stress we were discussing a process for interviewing middle to high-level employees, NOT entry level. None of these companies where my friends are employed uses a panel interview for EVERY candidate. None of them had used a group interview at their company in the past year. All knew about "group interviews" (using the description above), but they had mixed feelings about the real value of one. Technicians and clerks are almost always interviewed solely by the department head who will be the person they report to, after passing a preliminary phone screening.

I also asked the "gatekeeper" question. Each guy was adamant that they get two to ten worthless applicants for every valid one. They tell me, "It doesn't take a trained psychologist to screen most of the bad ones, BUT if we do screen out a good candidate, so what, there are plenty more."

So, FWIW, that's the mentality you face with gatekeepers: "There are always plenty more!" It may not be a nice situation, but it is a fact a job hunter needs to keep in mind in his job hunt strategy.
 
K

Kevin H

I'm really, really hoping that unlike Doug I won't be looking for a new job in the New Year. Mostly because I finished up what has got to be the longest job hunt I've ever done by accepting a position as QC Manager/Metallurgist for a foundry in Hanover, PA with a start date of Thursday, Dec. 20 :D

There is now a QC Engineer's position being advertised for the Johnstown, PA area with my current employer, a major producer of atomized iron powder for the powder metal parts industry - it went into last Sunday's local paper. PM me if anyone is interested.

Also, I worked with several recruiters during my search as well as using local sources, papers, ASQ, ASM, and boards such as Monster, Careerbuilder, etc. During the search, I ran across a gentleman who has to be the best recruiter I've ever worked with - would it make sense to start a thread regarding recruiters I've loved/hated?
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
I'm really, really hoping that unlike Doug I won't be looking for a new job in the New Year. Mostly because I finished up what has got to be the longest job hunt I've ever done by accepting a position as QC Manager/Metallurgist for a foundry in Hanover, PA with a start date of Thursday, Dec. 20 :D

There is now a QC Engineer's position being advertised for the Johnstown, PA area with my current employer, a major producer of atomized iron powder for the powder metal parts industry - it went into last Sunday's local paper. PM me if anyone is interested.

Also, I worked with several recruiters during my search as well as using local sources, papers, ASQ, ASM, and boards such as Monster, Careerbuilder, etc. During the search, I ran across a gentleman who has to be the best recruiter I've ever worked with - would it make sense to start a thread regarding recruiters I've loved/hated?
Sure. Why not? I don't have any grudge against recruiters. I used to own part of a big firm of recruiters.

Let me make this caution:

Recruiter turnover at agencies is so high, it is almost legend. Therefore, a recruiter mentioned by name today may be at a different agency tomorrow.
A lot of a recruiter's value and efficiency rests on the folks in his firm who garner the leads and provide the infrastructure of databases, phones, websites, etc., so the real value of a recruiter depends on the value of the infrastructure of the firm he works for.

Given the stuff I've cited, it might be better for all concerned if the thread talked about the "characteristics" or practices of the good and bad recruiters WITHOUT mentioning them by name or firm. That won't prevent any poster in the thread from responding to an email or private message query for the real name of the recruiter.

I recognize the recruiter is a business person and normally fair game for "outing," but since there are many variables BEYOND the recruiter's control, I feel it is unfair to praise or condemn any by name in public.
 
K

Kevin H

Actually Wes, he probably won't move on, as it's his firm. From our discussions, he's a bit older than I am, so retirement may be in the future. I don't think it's close though because the impression I've received from our discussions is that he loves what he does, which helps make work a lot more interesting and enjoyable. And as I said he's really good at it.

I've used recruiters on and off since my 2nd job hunt back in 1980. Some were good, most were OK, a few were a total loss. George is truly outstanding - I wish I'd happened across him 20 years ago.
 
Top Bottom